Isaac Newton’s third law states that for every action (force) in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction (counterforce). In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. Indeed, violence begets violence. It also depletes trust and the moral energy reserves of society.
During Derek Chauvin’s three-week trial, several people were shot dead by U.S. police. Is that policing? When Iceland has had only one police shooting since that country’s 1944 independence? When New Zealand police have used lethal force only 40 times since 1916?
The very notion of armed law “enforcement” begs the question: Why the need to “force” acceptance of laws that ostensibly serve or protect people? During the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, peaceful officials, police included, bent a knee, stood down, and marched along with protesters, keeping huge demonstrations peaceful and safe. Meanwhile, police violence elsewhere begat violence and abuse of power.
Not all police are armed. In 19 countries the police carry no firearms. They are policing by consent. These countries have gun-homicide rates markedly lower than countries with armed police forces.
Norwegian police have weapons in their vehicles but not on their person. England’s first professional policemen, the “bobbies” (named after then Home Secretary Robert Steele), were established in London in 1829. Policing by consent was thought to be the only option, since it is impossible to peacefully control a whole population by force. The bobbies still carry no firearms.
Garda Siochana (Guardians of the Peace) is the Irish Republic’s national police. According to its first commissioner, the Garda succeeds “not by force of arms or by numbers, but by its moral authority as servants of the people.” It relies on the consent of the people, which cannot come from intimidation or coercion. Not arming the police removes barriers between them and the community and helps create mutual trust and respect.
Deadly force should be available when required, but used only after all nonviolent remedies have been exhausted. An unarmed officer is less threatening to the public than an armed one. This alone reduces threats to the officer and encourages increased communication.
Arming police officers does not protect them. If anything, it increases their risk. According to the FBI, in half the murders of police officers, the officer didn’t even have time to draw his gun.
We have much to learn about the interplay of the rational and emotional in humans. Deciding to act is more than a rational sorting out of incoming information. We also tend to “believe” when analyzing a given situation. Expectations, past experiences, prior outcomes, genetic makeup, and previous injury all play a role in causing a police officer to feel threatened and in determining his or her decisions and actions. An officer’s interpretation may even be influenced by the brain’s need to satisfy certain chemical responses established by past experiences, like military combat or training.
Armed U.S. police may use deadly force when they “believe” they must defend themselves or other persons from the imminent use of deadly force, or to secure an arrest, or to prevent the escape of a person in custody who the officer “believes” is attempting to escape by means of deadly force or is presenting an imminent threat of serious injury to others. The decision to use deadly force is largely left up to whether the officer “feels” threatened.
Deadly police action has been routinely justified by the officer having “followed procedure” when the victim made some sort of movement that made the officer “feel” threatened. Removing the firearm from the officer’s belt would reduce the confrontational behavior of officers and allow time for calmly assessing tense situations.
If people fear those called to protect them, something is dreadfully wrong. The Second Amendment’s “well-regulated militia” was “needed” to oppress slaves on Confederate plantations. And once “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” was established, it naturally included the police, engendering a severe degree of mistrust across society. It is manifest in the built-in, systemic racism and white supremacy supported by the legal doctrine of constitutional “originalism” and the law-and-orderism and militarism that permeate all levels of U.S. society. Authoritarianism is never far behind.
Where would I begin police reform? 1. Eliminate “qualified immunity,” along with all forms of accompanying secrecy. Police must be subject to the same rules as everyone else. 2. Call out racism and white supremacy in all its manifestations. 3. Register and license all firearms. 4. Replace armed police with unarmed peace guardians. 5. Rethink laws that need to be “enforced.” 6. Consider the literal wording of the Second Amendment to see if its existence is justified.
(Paul Kando is a co-founder of the Midcoast Green Collaborative, which promotes environmental protection and economic development via energy conservation. For more information, go to midcoastgreencollaborative.org.)
